SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(UK) 156

B.C.KANDPAL, D.K.TYAGI, VEENA SHARMA
ANITA – Appellant
Versus
VANDANA SETHI – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Complainant : Mr. Taresh Sharma, Learned Counsel
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel

ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

Smt. Anita W/o Sh. Umesh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as “Complainant”) has filed this consumer complaint before this Commission under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging medical negligence committed by opposite party-Dr. (Smt.) Vandana Sethi in her treatment and compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Anita (complainant) W/o Sh. Umesh Kumar was in serious labour pain on 27.09.2005. She went to opposite party for check-up. After examination opposite party advised complainant’s husband to admit his wife to the opposite party’s hospital. On doctor’s advice, the complainant’s husband admit his wife to the opposite party’s nursing home. The doctor assured him for his wife’s normal delivery. After some time he was informed by the opposite party that Caesarean operation will be conducted. Due to critical condition of the complainant, the complainant’s husband consented for the same. During operation the opposite party called other doctor for Anesthesia. The complainant’s husband stated that the opposite party operated his wif
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top